Call in at (347) 850-1260, 6pm Eastern Thursdays

It’s not so easy to ascertain the name of the Plaintiff in foreclosure cases, where the Plaintiff is named as “U.S. Bank as trustee for XYZ Trust.” But the sanctions that might be expected in a Florida case are most likely going to be against U.S. Bank N.A., mainly because the alleged trust is not described as a legal entity having been organized and existing under the laws of any jurisdiction.

Depending upon what happens in court, the sanctions could broaden to include the attorneys who claim they represent U.S. Bank, N.A. or the alleged trust (or maybe both). It is unlikely that they have a retainer agreement with either one or for that matter any contact at all.

Charles Marshall is back along with Bill Paatalo to discuss the appalling if not surprising developments in a Florida judicial foreclosure lawsuit, US Bank National Association as Trustee v. Zayas. By appalling we refer to the behavior of the US Bank Trust, not the Judge’s Order to Show Cause, which is a needed cudgel to push more forcefully for U.S. Bank N.A. who “as trustee” is named Plaintiff in this case.

Bruce Jacobs, Esq. attorney for the homeowner is seeking essential long-sought documents and essential testimony by way of depositions of key executives pertinent to the Plaintiff “Trust’s” case, including Nationstar executives whose servicing of the subject loan has been a not-so-funhouse charade of smoke and mirrors.

Plaintiff’s attorneys in this case have avoided for many months on behalf of their Bank or Trust client providing already overdue documents violating previous discovery time frames and associated orders. The Judge in this case is demanding the production of certain documents, and the scheduling and directing of several depositions of Plaintiff-related executives, including executives from Nationstar. The Judge has scheduled a Show-Cause hearing for July 30, at which Plaintiff must appear to explain and ultimately justify the almost year-long disregarding of a previous discovery order of August 2018.

Charles and Bill will break down further the nuts and bolts of not only the discovery sanctions motion aspects in this case, but implications for homeowners around the country.

the more i think about this issue, the more i think that the fraud charges should be brought against the attys, not the banksters. the banksters are a protected class. they pay off the national politicians and the judicial players and the DAs, AGs, etc., etc, the attys pay off the courts and enjoy judical immunity re fraud upon the court. go directly to the regulators with your atty complaints. the govy regulators love to fine everything that moves. that’s how i would do it.

While this is very good. I still believe the other coin of the fraud. Is debt collectors servicers fraudclosing in their name when fannie/Freddie say the own the note on UNSECURED debt since they don’t have anything to do with the mortgage/deed.

All this fraud must stop. Fraudclosures moratoriums are a must need immediately.

The unanswered questions remain vast. It is correct that before the bail out, servicers claimed right to enforce. Courts debunked servicer rights. After the bailout, everything went haywire. The government did not contemplate servicer fraud, attorney fraud, title problems, and violations of consumer protection laws – when they quickly put together a scheme to save the banks.

The very strange thing in courts is that attorneys attach the trustee name to the trust. That is, they claim that the legal name of the trust includes the trustee name — i.e. — U.S. Bank, N.A, trustee for BS TRUST HOAX123.

No — the legal name of the trust series, found in prospectus, does attach the trustee to the trust name. These are separate entities. So no one knows who is the claimant, who represents who, and without that information, discovery is difficult.

Further, these REMICs were set up for cash flow pass through only. They are CLOSED for cash flow pass through. DEFUNCT. REMICS were also set up as a traditional trust, whereby, only the trustee can act on it’s behalf (see SCOTUS). But, the trustees are nowhere to be found because the trusts are CLOSED. Any indemnification should be of no concern to borrowers, and should not enter into complying with the law as to disclose the CURRENT creditor. Unfortunately, the FDCPA has a very short statute of limitations. FDCPA is probably the most important consumer protection law out there. No one can “negotiate” with an undisclosed CURRENT creditor, or correct records without same.

As an important long time poster on this blog has told me — there is systematic fraud that is very difficult to conquer. He is correct.

Who is paying the plaintiff’s lawyers in a bank’s (or “trustee’s” lawsuit for foreclosure against the homeowner(s)? Can that information be gotten in discovery? Would that be who is actually behind the foreclosure? I have all kinds of questions but no answers, still don’t know why this criminal “enterprise” of foreclosures is being allowed by our judiciary to continue.